Time to change channels at the CBC?

[rbacon]

When working families pay more in taxes now than they do for food, shelter, clothing and transportation combined don't you are being just a wee bit selfish. The typical Socialist "Let them eat cake". Socialist's are the problem, disgustingly selfish.

[August1991]

Sparhawk you are a quick study. Taxpayers should not be subsidizing TV programming, let the consumer pay. Taxes are too high now. Sell it off and disband the CRTC at the same time. We are all adults who can decide for ourselves what we want to watch. It's only socialists that are frightened. Let them pay directly. They can use Paypal every week to keep up the CBC.

rb, your simplistic parrot refrain of "free market, free market" is mistaken. The world is a little more complicated, and the CBC is a good example of this complexity.

The CBC budget is about $1 billion per year, or about $30 ($2.50 per month) from each Canadian. For that price, we get two TV networks and four radio networks coast-to-coast. I think it's a cheap deal.

The alternative is private broadcasting and irritating ads everyone must watch even though they are only directed at a small percentage of the population who may want to buy the advertised product.

Another alternative is cable and satellite with subscription fees, but this not perfect either. This is a new technology and possibly the CBC could, in the future, be privatized and function that way.

No one wants the Canadian government to set up a chain of fast food restaurants - markets do this well. Markets don't work well for broadcasting.

BTW, this is a non-debate in Quebec. There is zero desire to change Radio-Canada. R-C also is much less irritating than the CBC. And I think this is the real problem. The CBC is just too irritating too often. I don't know how that could be changed.

[Riverwind]

BTW, this is a non-debate in Quebec. There is zero desire to change Radio-Canada. R-C also is much less irritating than the CBC. And I think this is the real problem. The CBC is just too irritating too often. I don't know how that could be changed.

The CBC only receives about $800 million in government funding ($1.2 billion budget includes other sources of revenue). If you assume the French CBC cannot be cut because its marketshare is very large in Quebec then you only have about $400 in potential savings from the English CBC.

Satellite radio will not replace the CBC because it cannot provide local coverage - local coverage on CBC radio is something the CBC does extremely well. There is nothing that comes close in Vancouver area.

[scribblet]

Ya the CBC needs to be completely privatized.

Yep, kinda like the unbiased Fox news.

Fox news isn't subsidized by the taxpayers.

The founding principle behind the publicly funded CBC television was to ensure that Canadian programs were available to all citizens. Today there are many other stations which offer Canadian content so the gov't no longer needs to raid the public purse.

[fellowtraveller]

NPR in the US does not earn enough from donations/limited ads - it needs govt funding. It is unreasonable to assume the a national CBC radio services would do much better. I am not adverse to having CBC use donations to supplement its budget - I am just saying it unrealistic to expect the service to continue without gov't support.

You are making an assumption that Canadians will not support public radio directly, and I have given you a concrete and verifiable example of a major station that has done that very thing.

Those few that listen to CBC radio are strong supporters and loyal listeners. I'd very much like them to have an opportunity to demonstarte that loyalty and commit,ent, instead of insisting that all taxpayers pay for their information and entertainment.

If you are committed to our governemtn paying for information and entertainment for its citizens via the CBC, then you won't have any trouble also approving my invoice to the govt for magazine subscriptions, DVD rentals, movie passes, Internet access and cable TV bills. Fair enough? Info and entertainment for all, not just a few.

[wellandboy]

According to bbm.ca, when you look at their data on viewership, the CBC isn't in the top 25 except for Hockey Night in Canada and several exceptions such as the Leaders debate and the Grey Cup game. While an argument could be made that the CBC provides a service over and above what's available on private networks, I challenge anybody to provide proof. Local news is Toronto, National News falls below CTV and Global in viewership, mainstream CBC offers little programming that's neither particularily funny or dramatically compelling. I do watch TVO and Buffalo PBS which I support through a small donation because both stations offer programming that's relevant and entertaining.

CBC Radio used to offer some excellent shows such as Morningside and As It Happens, the former is gone and the latter is old and tired.

I believe CBC needs to be downsized considerably, with a PBS, TVO model being used to support their existence beyond a much smaller government stipend. Newsworld is redundant and should be scrapped all together.

[Boru]

Seperation of powers. Media that has their budget controlled by the ruling party is a ridiculous idea.

Why is it any different than having judges and policemen with salaries controlled by the 'ruling party'?

It isn't any different, just there you can't do anything to stop it.

You assume there is an inherant problem with public funding. Can you imagine what would happen with provately funded police? Talk to South Korea about that..it's enough to send shivers down your spine.

Anyhow, in my opinion, having a public funded channel does ensure awider abse of information to draw from.

Privately owned channels naturally gravitate towards the right wing since they are private corporations, that would benefit from Conservative policies. The CBC is criticized foer being biased, and I agree. ALthough it is not as bad as the blue camp claims, it is noticable. I think it is a good counterbabalance to the private monopoly over media.

[shoop]

Then go with the PBS/TVO model.

PBS (and it's kindred spirit NPR) provide a great balancing force in the U.S.

Allow CBC to split into radio and television wings. IF people are willing to support them than they will survive.

Privately owned channels naturally gravitate towards the right wing since they are private corporations, that would benefit from Conservative policies. The CBC is criticized foer being biased, and I agree. ALthough it is not as bad as the blue camp claims, it is noticable. I think it is a good counterbabalance to the private monopoly over media.

[tml12]

Then go with the PBS/TVO model.

PBS (and it's kindred spirit NPR) provide a great balancing force in the U.S.

Allow CBC to split into radio and television wings. IF people are willing to support them than they will survive.

Privately owned channels naturally gravitate towards the right wing since they are private corporations, that would benefit from Conservative policies. The CBC is criticized foer being biased, and I agree. ALthough it is not as bad as the blue camp claims, it is noticable. I think it is a good counterbabalance to the private monopoly over media.

Got your back there Shoop,

[Riverwind]

Allow CBC to split into radio and television wings. IF people are willing to support them than they will survive.

1) PBS/NPR are funded by the US govt. Asking CBC to use donations to supplement its income to does not mean gov't funding would end.

2) PBS/NPR have huge endowment funds that they have built up over generations. The government would have to provide an similar endowment fund up front or offer more funding.

3) CBC is required to ensure that all communities in Canada have free access to media. If the CBC is forced to cater to its donors you can bet that it will have to cut those services. The gov't will end up having to spend money to subsidize private firms to provide services in some communities.

4) CBC has 4 parts that benefit from a shared news organization. Separating them would increase costs and reduce quality of coverage.

5) The cost of developing quality programming is roughly the same in Canada as it is in the US. It is unrealistic to assume that a private CBC would be able to produce the same programming with a donor base 1/10th the size.

In short, there are enough people in the country that believe a public/non-commercial broadcaster is good thing so it is a reasonable use of public funds. It is unlikely that any change to the funding model will actually save the gov't any money.

[shoop]

There is a *huge* difference between the CBC, which is funded by taxpayer dollars and PBS/NPR which receive public funds. The Government of Canada pays a higher percentage of total operating expenses than the U.S. Feds do for either PBS or NPR.

There would be cost savings if the government deemed it necessary. CBC *might* be able to build up an endowment on its own. If not then it would have to cut services.

Whatever made you think that the government would pay to create an endowment for CBC?

1) PBS/NPR are funded by the US govt. Asking CBC to use donations to supplement its income to does not mean gov't funding would end.

In short, there are enough people in the country that believe a public/non-commercial broadcaster is good thing so it is a reasonable use of public funds. It is unlikely that any change to the funding model will actually save the gov't any money.

[Riverwind]

There is a *huge* difference between the CBC, which is funded by taxpayer dollars and PBS/NPR which receive public funds. The Government of Canada pays a higher percentage of total operating expenses than the U.S. Feds do for either PBS or NPR.

Not as much as you think. NPR/PBS recieve about 1/3 of their funding from the gov't and they receive about 1/3 of their funding from their endowment funds. The CBC receives about 2/3 of its funding from the gov't and has no endowment fund.

Whatever made you think that the government would pay to create an endowment for CBC?

Because simply cutting funding would be equivalent to killing the CBC. I know the neo-cons in Ottawa would love to kill the CBC and try to blame it on lack of public support. I am simply stating what the gov't would have to do if it really wanted the CBC to survive on a private model similar to PBS/NPR.

Also the smaller Canadian market would require a greater gov't contribution than in the states.

Frankly, I am tired of this I only want the gov't to spend money on programs I want attitude. If unanimous support was required before the gov't could spend money on something you would find there would be very few government programs left.

Personally, it bugs me that the gov't gives tax exemptions to religious groups. Why should those of us who don't believe in organized religion pay higher taxes so others can belong to a glorified social club. So if we end CBC funding then we should end all indirect funding to churches to be fair.

[shoop]

The Canadian taxpayers pay *twice* as much of the CBCs budget as the U.S. taxpayers do of NPR/PBS and this isn't a big difference?

Why you gotta use hatefully terminology like neo-con? Does it make you feel better constantly *attack* *attack* *attack*? Is *scary* *scary* *scary* really starting this early for election 2008?

Seriously, how does that further the debate at all? Or do you just feel better throwing in the attacks?

If as you say "there are enough people in the country that believe a public/non-commercial broadcaster is good thing." Then there should be enough financial support for it to survive.

Not as much as you think. NPR/PBS recieve about 1/3 of their funding from the gov't and they receive about 1/3 of their funding from their endowment funds. The CBC receives about 2/3 of its funding from the gov't and has no endowment fund.

Because simply cutting funding would be equivalent to killing the CBC. I know the neo-cons in Ottawa would love to kill the CBC and try to blame it on lack of public support. I am simply stating what the gov't would have to do if it really wanted the CBC to survive on a private model similar to PBS/NPR.

[Riverwind]

Why you gotta use hatefully terminology like neo-con? Does it make you feel better constantly *attack* *attack* *attack*? Is *scary* *scary* *scary* really starting this early for election 2008?

Sensitive are we? neo-con is accurate descriptive term for a particular right wing ideology. I was going to use 'conservative' but felt that was not accurate because many red tories support public broadcasting.

If as you say "there are enough people in the country that believe a public/non-commercial broadcaster is good thing." Then there should be enough financial support for it to survive.

If there are enough people that want tax dollars spent on a public broadcaster then there is nothing wrong with it. The only people who want to privatize it are people who support are convinced that the free market is the solution to all problems. I don't share that opinion. Neither do many other Canadians.

Maybe we should have a referendum on whether to cut the CBC or tax deductions to churches. I am willing to bet that both questions would draw a similar level of support.

[shoop]

Absolutely right I am sensitive. In your snotty way simply refusing to deal with me is sadly, arrogant. But get the point, you can sit and pontificate all you want from behind your keyboard. Whatever party you support did not form government. Ohh, you called CPC supporters neo-cons. Wow are you smart. You are *almost* as smart as the braniacs in the Liberal war room.

Your anti-religious rant is just plain ignorant. Do you have *any* support for your claim about tax deductions for religious institutions vs. cuts to the CBC. (Oh I forgot you did say churches. Is your contempt only reserved for Christians or are any Canadians who donate to the religious institution they have the freedom to support beneath you?) Ohhh, you forgot how many people would not want to make that choice. That is right, there are somepeople who believe in organized religion and watch the CBC. Are these people *smart and hip* because they support the CBC or worthy of your contempt because religion plays a role in their lives?

Still waiting on this figures re: funding for CBC vs. PBS/NPR. Oh that's right you pulled your numbers outta your butt, that's why you never provide any support for your posts.

Sensitive are we? neo-con is accurate descriptive term for a particular right wing ideology. I was going to use 'conservative' but felt that was not accurate because many red tories support public broadcasting.

Maybe we should have a referendum on whether to cut the CBC or tax deductions to churches. I am willing to bet that both questions would draw a similar level of support.

[gerryhatrick]

Screw with the CBC and die.

Canada likes it's CBC. I'd like to see a poll.....I'd bet a year salary more than 50% would say keep it.

Good, quality programming. The accusations of bias are shrill and tinfoil-hatish.

[shoop]

You are off to quite the start their gerry.

Your third post before you get tough and start threatening physical violence. Way to keep up the decorum on the board.

Screw with the CBC and die.

[tml12]

You are off to quite the start their gerry.

Your third post before you get tough and start threatening physical violence. Way to keep up the decorum on the board.

Screw with the CBC and die.

I'm terrified...by the fact that he may not have a six-figure salary...

[gerryhatrick]

You are off to quite the start their gerry.

Your third post before you get tough and start threatening physical violence. Way to keep up the decorum on the board.

Screw with the CBC and die.

Shoop, you are reading into my post incorrectly. You're off to a bad start in my eyes also....I see you reading strange reasons into McKennas decision not to run, and now reading poorly into my post.

The meaning was a political one. If you are a political party, screw with the CBC and die.

To say a political party would die is not a thread of violence from myself.

Sorry for your confusion.

[shoop]

How about proffering some *not strange* reasons for McKenna's decision not to run, or explain why reasons are strange. And can you do it without threating to kill anything or anyone?

I see you reading strange reasons into McKennas decision not to run, and now reading poorly into my post.

[Riverwind]

Whatever party you support did not form government. Ohh, you called CPC supporters neo-cons.

Try reading what I wrote. I said people calling for the privatization of CBC 'neo-cons'. I did not call CPC supporters neo-cons. BTW - the party I supported did form gov't so I don't know what that rant was about.

Your anti-religious rant is just plain ignorant. Do you have *any* support for your claim about tax deductions for religious institutions vs. cuts to the CBC.

I was curious and tried to find the numbers at one time, unfortunately, the gov't publications do not provide that level of detail. What I did find suggested the lost revenue is in the 100s of millions so the comparison to CBC funding is reasonable. I also have no number for property taxes lost to municipalities - I am sure that adds up to a big number too.

That is right, there are some people who believe in organized religion and watch the CBC. Are these people *smart and hip* because they support the CBC or worthy of your contempt because religion plays a role in their lives?

You must tired shoop. You usually don't get that flustered. I did not say that I wanted to end tax detectability for churches. I said that IF it is unfair to subsidize CBC because only some people want it then it is EQUALLY unfair to subsidize churches because only some people want it.

My point is simple: you cannot argue that people who want CBC should pay for it themselves unless you apply that same standard to every gov't program. I used the example of subsidies to churches because I guessed it might be a program that you believe in.

Still waiting on this figures re: funding for CBC vs. PBS/NPR. Oh that's right you pulled your numbers outta your butt, that's why you never provide any support for your posts.

Don't have time to go through all of the annual reports again (yes - i did look this up). There is no convenient link to provide.

[gerryhatrick]

How about proffering some *not strange* reasons for McKenna's decision not to run, or explain why reasons are strange. And can you do it without threating to kill anything or anyone?

You are obviously not interested in good faith debate. You have already accused me of threatening to kill people. I explained a couple of posts back your mistake. Here is my explanation again:

Shoop, you are reading into my post incorrectly.

The meaning was a political one. If you are a political party, screw with the CBC and die.

To say a political party would die is not a thread of violence from myself.

Sorry for your confusion.

Now, I wonder if you're able to utter the phrase "sorry, my bad", or if you're the type who will falsely accuse and stick by it 'till death. That's not a threat either, btw.

[shoop]

I probably am tired, but picking *churches* was a bad choice on your part. You could have picked hundreds of other programs without going after a "fundamental freedom".

Yes, the government does have to make choices, but for you to frivolously say that tax deductions for religious institutions would be equally as supported as the CBC is just plain wrong.

You must tired shoop. You usually don't get that flustered. I did not say that I wanted to end tax detectability for churches. I said that IF it is unfair to subsidize CBC because only some people want it then it is EQUALLY unfair to subsidize churches because only because some people want it.

[Riverwind]

I probably am tired, but picking *churches* was a bad choice on your part. You could have picked hundreds of other programs without going after "fundamental freedom".

You use an interesting choice of words. Why is it up to the gov't to support places of worship? And how would the elimination of the tax deduction deny a person's right to believe in the religion of their choice? I know there are good arguments in favor of tax breaks for churches, however, I think these arguments are just as valid as my arguments for a publicly supported broadcaster.

Free speech is another *fundamental freedom*. The need to attract advertisers introduces a bias into news reporting and programming. This means that certain stories do not get covered. I also agree that government funding introduces a different kind of bias, however, we are all better off if we have both types of services available. In other words, a non-commercial broadcaster increase the amount of free speech in our society.

[shoop]

Spar,

You almost make a lucid argument here. But not quite.

Yes, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are both fundamental freedoms.

But freedom of speech covers what citizens have the right to say. Not what they have the right to watch on television.

I completely agree with you about the place for a non-commercial broadcaster in Canada. I just think such a broadcaster can survive with far less money from the government. Look at all the PBS pledge drives. How much money could CBC rake in with one of those every quarter or so?

Free speech is another *fundamental freedom*. The need to attract advertisers introduces a bias into news reporting and programming. This means that certain stories do not get covered. I also agree that government funding introduces a different kind of bias, however, we are all better off if we have both types of services available. In other words, a non-commercial broadcaster increase the amount of free speech in our society.